',‘Vv  ’ 


.S;.' 


• '  1- .  '^'. 

’-''  -V 


)  ’  '  y  '  ■•-,  *,■ 


'?<>  {..  '.V 
.V  .,  '■••  :: 


-  ■  'T' ■■■. 


.  V  A-  '• 


y.'v 


v.At, 


(Origin  au&  PrinriplpH 
of  tijp 
OIljrtHltanH 


Kfuiapp  Ebilion 


J.  3.  lurnplt 


Preface. 


In  the  early  years  of  my  ministry,  I 
felt  most  keenly  the  need  of  some  con¬ 
cise  statement  of  the  Origin  and 
Principles  of  the  Christians  and  search¬ 
ed  as  diligently  and  as  widely  as  I 
could  for  such  information,  and  was 
rewarded  only  by  fragmentary  state¬ 
ments.  I  have  strongly  and  increasing¬ 
ly  felt  the  need  of  such  information, 
and  determined  several  years  ago  if  ever 
within  my  power  so  to  do,  to  prepare 
such  work  for  the  information  of  those 
who  like  myself  so  sorely  needed  it. 
This  little  booklet  contains  the  result 
of  years  of  searching  the  oldest  reliable 
publications  the  writer  could  secure, 
and  consulting  the  best  authorities 
known  to  him.  The  contents  of  the 
booklet  have  at  various  times  and  in 
many  places  been  given  in  a  fragmen¬ 
tary  way  in  lectures  and  addresses,  and 
the  writer  believes  that  God  has  blessed 
them,  and  that  he  will  in  some  way  use 
the  booklet  for  his  glory  and  the  good 
of  his  cause.  With  the  hope  that  at 
least  some  may  he  helped  by  it. 

I  am,  yours  in  service. 


Historical  Facts 


James  O’Kelly  withdrew  from  the 
Methodist  Church  1792. 

For  about  two  years  (until  1794)  he 
and  his  followers  were  known  as  Re¬ 
publican  Methodists. 

He  and  his  followers  met  in  the  Leb¬ 
anon  Church,  Virginia,  August,  1794, 
and  took  the  name  Christian  to  the  ex¬ 
clusion  of  all  other  names. 

The  Christians  never  accepted  offi¬ 
cially  nor  generally  the  name  Christian 
Connection  nor  New-Light. 

Abner  Jones  organized  his  first 
church,  taking  the  name  Christian  in 
1802. 

Elias  Smith  began  publishing  the 
Christian  Magazine  in  1805. 

Elias  Smith  founded  the  Herald  of 
Gospel  Liberty  in  1808. 

Barton  W.  Stone  withdrew  (finally) 
from  the  Presbyterians  1804. 

The  Springfield  Presbytery  was  dis¬ 
solved  June,  1804. 

Thomas  Campbell  reached  America 
in  May,  1807. 

The  Christian  Association  of  Wash¬ 
ington  was  organized  1809. 


3 


Alexander  Campbell  readied  Amer¬ 
ica  in  1809. 

Thomas  Campbell-  made  application 
for  membership  in  the  Pittsbnrg  Pres¬ 
bytery  in  1810,  and  was  refused  mem¬ 
bership  for  himself  and  chnrches. 

First  elinrcli  organized  by  the  Camp¬ 
bells  was  at  Brush  Run,  Pa.,  1811. 

Tliere  was  not  an  immersed  person 
in  it  and  not  for  two  years  afterward. 

Alexander  Campliell  was  ordained  at 
Brush  Run,  Pa.,  January  1,  1812. 

Thomas  Campbell  was  baptized  by  a 
Baptist  minister  by  the  name  of  Luce, 
June  12,  1813. 

Alexander  Campliell  was  baptized  at 
the  same  time  and  by  the  same  Baptist 
minister. 

They  united  with  the  Baptist  Associ¬ 
ation  1815. 

Alexander  Campbell  contended  that 
he  was  a  Baptist  in  1826,  and  in  full 
fellowship  with  the  Mahoning  Baptist 
Association. 

Alexander  Campbell  established  the 
Christian  Baptist  in  1823. 

Alexander  Campbell  made  immersion 
in  water  a  test  of  fellowship  in  the  local 
congregation  in  1825. 

The  followers  of  Alexander  Camp¬ 
bell  were  known  as  Baptists,  Christian 
Baptists,  Reformers,  Baptist  Reform- 


4 


ers,  Eestorationers,  Campbellites  from 
1813  to  about  1832. 

Alexander  Campbell  and  his  follow¬ 
ers  were  disfellowshipped  by  the  Bap¬ 
tists  in  1829.  '' 

Alexander  Campbell  and  his  follow¬ 
ers  issued  calls  to  the  Baptist  churches 
for  public  meetings  in  1830. 

The  Mahoning  Baptist  Association 
was  dissolved  in  1831. 

From  1813  to  1830  the  whole  move¬ 
ment  led  by  the  Campbells  was  a  prop¬ 
aganda  among  the  Baptist  churches. 

The  whole  movement  was  eliminated 
from  the  Baptist  Church  by  the  year 
1832. 

Alexander  Campbell  did  not  think 
seriously  of  a  name  for  his  followers 
until  after  they  had  been  eliminated 
from  the  Baptist  Church  in  1832,  at 
which  time  he  expressed  a  preference 
for  the  name  Christian  but  declined  it 
because  it  had  been  “taken  by  the  fol¬ 
lowers  of  Stone  and  was  thought  by 
Campbell  to  be  a  badge  of  sectarian¬ 
ism.” 

Alexander  Campbell  and  Barton  W. 
Stone  did  not  meet  until  the  year  1824. 

'  There  was  not  the  semblance  of 
union  between  them  until  the  year 
1832. 

The  union  question  was  discussed  for 


three  years,  1832-1835,  and  then  found 
many  staunch  opposers  in  both  bodies. 

Barton  W.  Stone  had  been  preach¬ 
ing  and  founding  Christian  Churches 
for  full  twenty  years  before  he  met  Al¬ 
exander  Campbell. 


6 


Origin  and  Principles  of 
the  Christians 


INTRODUCTORY. 

Many,  even  of  our  own  people,  know 
but  little  of  our  origin  and  principles, 
and  are  eagerly  seeking  information. 
Who  are  the  Christians?  Whence  came 
they  ?  What  is  their  mission,  belief  and 
strength,  are  questions  often  asked  by 
those  who  really  seek  to  know.  Most 
of  the  Protestant  sects  trace  their 
origin  to  some  individual  reformer, 
such  as  a  Luther,  a  Calvin,  a  Fox,  a 
Wesley,  or  a  Campbell.  The  Christians 
never  had  any  such  leader,  nor  can 
they  trace  their  origin  and  principles 
to  the  labors  of  any  one  man,  or  the 
wisdom  and  work  of  any  one  confer¬ 
ence,  association  or  convention. 

They  arose  nearly  simultaneously  in 
the  South,  East  and  West,  and  that, 
too,  in  sections  remote  from  each  other, 
without  any  preconcerted  plan,  or  even 
knowledge  of  each  other’s  movements. 
Some  years  later  these  three  branches 
learned  of  each  other’s  existence, sought 
and  obtained  information  concerning 
each  other  and  found  to  their  great 

7 


surprise  and  delight  that  all  three  had 
embraced  the  same  principles  and  were 
engaged  in  doing  the  same  work. 
There  may  have  been  different  meth¬ 
ods,  and  a  variety  of  opinions,  hut 
there  was  an  essential  oneness  of  pur¬ 
pose,  and  they  dwelt  together  in  the 
unity  of  the  spirit  and  the  bond  of 
peace,  and  this  has  been  true  of  them 
throughout  all  their  years.  They  may 
be  lacking  in  uniformity,  but  they  have 
lived,  loved,  and  labored  in  harmony, 
as  /perhaps  no  other  people  has  ever 
done.  I  have  often  been  asked  to 
preach  on  the  doctrines  of  this  people 
called  Christians.  To  all  such  requests 
I  have  invariably  replied  that  the 
Christian  church,  as  such,  had  no 
doctrine,  and  more,  it  had  no  right  to 
a  formulated  doctrine  which  might 
exist  by  reason  of  a  vote  of  the  church. 
The  doctrine  is  of  God.  ’  It  is  older 
than  the  church.  It  is  written  in  the 
Book,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  church 
to  believe  and  practice  the  doctrine  as 
it  finds  it  revealed  of  God.  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  God,  of  Christ,  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  of  repentance,  of  faitli,  of  bapr 
tism,  of  forgiveness,  of  justification, 
of  sanctification,  of  prayer,  of  heaven, 
of  immortality,  of  rewards  and  punish¬ 
ment,  is  written  in  the  Book.  It  is  of 
God,  and  is  eternal  in  character  and 


S 


duration,  and  no  man  or  number  of 
men  lias  any  right  to  change  one  “jot 
or  one  tittle,”  add  to,  or  take  from, 
under  penalty  of  having  their  names 
taken  out  of  the  Book  of  Life.  With 
a  charity  as  broad  as  truth  itself,  the 
Christian  church  has  stood,  not  for  a 
formulated  doctrine,  hut  for  an  honest 
belief  of  the  doctrine  as  written  and 
the  faithful  practice  of  that  belief  in 
home,  church  and  state. 

The  Christians  learned  very  early  in 
their  career  that  in  the  thought  and 
practice  of  sectarianism  there  was  but 
little  difference  between  doctrine  and 
dogma,  and  sought  to  remain  free  that 
they  might  breathe  God’s  spirit  and 
fellowship  his  children  without  refer¬ 
ence  to  theological  opinions  or  eccles¬ 
iastical  tests. 

Notwithstanding  the  Christians  have 
not  had  a  formulated  statement  of 
doctrine,  they  have  had  a  few  prin¬ 
ciples  around  which  they  have  cluster¬ 
ed  their  thoughts  and  activities  and 
for  which  they  have  stood  for  more 
than  a  hundred  years. 

THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  INDIVIDUAL 

Prominent  among  these  principles  is 
the  right  of  the  individual  to  interpret 
God’s  truth  for  himself.  The  question 
is  often  asked,  AVhere  did  that  prin- 


9 


ciple  originate?  What  conference  or 
assembly  gave  it  existence  ?  Was  it  re¬ 
ported  upon  by  a  committee  appointed 
and  charged  with  the  duty  of  defining 
the  rights  of  man?  Was  that  report 
when  made  discussed  and  adopted  by  a 
unanimous  vote  of  any  regularly  con¬ 
stituted  authority?  To  all  these 
questions  and  similar  ones  I  answer, 
No.  The  right  of  the  individual  is 
a  God-given  right  and  was  simply  rec¬ 
ognized  and  exercised  by  those  who 
were  first  to  declare  in  favor  of  the  one 
against  the  many. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  prior  to 
the  Eevolutionary  war  the  Methodist 
Church  in  America  was  considered  a 
branch  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
was  dependent  upon  English  Episco¬ 
pacy  for  the  regular  administrations 
of  the  church  ordinances.  But  as  the 
Revolution  had  wrested  the  states  from 
British  rule,  it  also  left  the  American 
Methodists  free  to  transact  their  own 
affairs.  After  the  close  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tionary  war,  when  the  Methodist 
Church  in  America  had  separated  itself 
from  their  brethren  in  England,  the 
Rev.  John  Wesley  wrote  from  Bristol, 
England,  September  10,  1784,  to  Dr. 
Coke,  Francis  Asbury  and  Others,  giv¬ 
ing  them  detailed  instructions  regard¬ 
ing  the  future  life  and  work  of  the 


10 


Methodist  Church  in  their  country. 
Dr.  Coke,  Francis  Asbury  and  others 
desired  to  establish  an  Episcopal  form 
of  government.  They  wanted  to 
Episcopize  the  church  to  the  extent 
of  preventing  any  appeal  from  the 
decision  of  the  Bishop.  They  were 
determined  in  spirit,  sanguine  in 
hope,  and  unceasing  in  their  efforts  to 
accomplish  their  purpose.  They  made 
public  their  intention  of  clothing  the 
Bishop  with  Episcopal  power.  Their 
proposed  form  of  government  became 
a  subject  of  spirited  and  constant  dis¬ 
cussion  in  several  conferences  imme¬ 
diately  preceding  the  general  confer¬ 
ence,  where  the  question  of  government 
was  to  be  settled,  for  it  was  for  the 
settlement  of  this  question  more  than 
for  any  other  reason  that  the  first  Gen¬ 
eral  Conference  of  the  Methodist 
Church  was  held.  This  conference  met 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  Maryland,  in 
November,  1792.  From  the  Compen¬ 
dium  of  Methodism  by  James  Porter, 
D.  D.,  I  take  the  following : 

“This  General  Conference  properly 
enough  called  the  first,  was  held  in  Bal¬ 
timore,  November,  1792.  Here  the 
whole  economy  of  the  church  was  re¬ 
viewed,  and  such  alterations  made  as 
the  experience  of  previous  years  sug¬ 
gested.  But  one  man  especially  had  it 


11 


in  his  heart  to  produce  a  radical  change 
in  the  government.  We  refer  to  Rev. 
James  O’Kelly,  a  very  popular  preach¬ 
er  and  an  old  presiding  elder  from 
Virginia.  His  plan  provided  that,  after 
his  reading  of  the  aprjointments  of  the 
preachers  by  the  bishop,  if  any  one 
thought  himself  injured  he  might  ap¬ 
peal  to  the  conference,  and  state  his 
objections,  when  if  the  conference 
thought  them  sufficient,  the  bishop 
should  change  his  appointment.  It  was 
discussed  about  three  days  with  great 
interest,  and  then  rejected  by  a  large 
majority.  This  gave  Mr.  O’Kelly 
great  offense,  and  the  next  morning 
he  resigned  his  seat.  Everything  was 
done  by  the  conference  to  appease  him, 
except  to  adopt  his  plan,  but  to  no  pur¬ 
pose.  He  withdrew  from  the  church, 
and  formed  a  separate  party,  raising 
a  hue  and  cry  against  the  church  he 
had  left,  and  denouncing  the  minis¬ 
ters,  and  especially  Bishop  Asbury. 
The  excitement  was  great,  and  many 
seceded  and  joined  the  new  party.  To 
make  some  gain  of  the  political  fever 
which  raged  in  those  times,  they  took 
the  name  of  “Republican  Methodist.” 
This  brought  the  spirit  of  the  world  to 
their  aid,  and  many  of  the  people,  some 
whole  societies  in  Virginia,  withdrew 
and  took  their  meeting  houses  with 


12 


them,  while  otliers  were  embittered, 
divided  and  destroyed.  In  the  course 
of  the  four  years  immediately  succeed¬ 
ing  this  outbreak,  the  church  decreased 
in  her  membership  nmre  than  12,000. 
But,  after  all,  the  enterprise  did  not 
succeed.  The  traveling  preachers 
found  that  there  was  more  popery  in 
the  new  concern  than  in  the  old,  not¬ 
withstanding  its  titles  and  pretensions, 
and  all  but  one  returned  to  the  church, 
bringing  large  numbers  of  the  people 
with  them.  Those  who  remained  strug¬ 
gled  on  but  with  little  encouragement. 
In  1801  they  sought  to  help  a  sinking 
cause  by  a  new  name  and  came  out  un¬ 
der  the  imposing  cognomen  of  the 
Christian  Church.” 

It  will  be  seen  from  facts  given  later 
on,  that  the  distinguished  author  was 
mistaken  in  the  time  of  adopting  the 
name  and  we  may  reasonably  conclude 
that  he  was  mistaken  as  to  the  number 
returning  to  the  original  fold,  but  it 
is  a  fact  that  the  conference  did  try  to 
induce  Mr.  O’Kelly  to  return  for  they 
sent  a  committee  to  treat  with  him.  He 
says  of  this  meeting  with  the  committee 
that  they  “conversed  Freely  and  loving¬ 
ly;  although  they  could  not  defend  the 
government,  nor  the  conduct  of  the 
president  yet  they  thought  it  advisable 
to  submit.” 


This  James  O’Kelly  was  a  mighty 
man.  He  was  a  classmate  of  Thomas 
Jefferson  and  Patrick  Henry  and  being 
well  versed  in  Methodism  and  imbued 
with  the  spirit  of  religious  liberty  it  was 
“Greek  meeting  Greek”  when  he  op¬ 
posed  the  Episcopacy  proposed  and  de¬ 
fended  by  Ashury  and  Coke.  In  this 
first  General  conference  he  introduced 
a  resolution  to  the  effect  that  should 
any  one  be  appointed  to  a  circuit  and 
thought  himself  injured  by  the  appoint¬ 
ment,  that  he  should  have  the  right  to 
appeal  to  the  conference  and  state  his 
objection,  and  should  the  conference 
approve  his  objection  the  Bishop  should 
appoint  him  to  another  circuit,  and  he 
made  a  speech  in  favor  of  the  “injured 
preacher”  but  was  given  to  understand 
that  individuals  had  no  rights  that  bish¬ 
ops  were  hound  to  respect.  Then  it 
was  that  Mr.  O’Kelly  left  the  confer¬ 
ence  and  was  followed  by  about  twen¬ 
ty  other  ministers.  Among  them  was  a 
man  by  the  name  of  McKendria,  who 
afterward  returned  to  the  conference 
and  was  subsequently  made  a  bishop. 
Very  few  preachers  nowadays  know 
anything  about  an  injured  preacher, 
but  I  happen  to  know.  It  was  then, 
and  is  now,  a  preacher  who  has  a  large 
circuit  and  a  small  salary. 


14 


In  Mr.  0 ’Kelly’s  defense  of  the  in¬ 
dividual  was  born  that  principle,  “The 
Right  of  the  Individual,”  for  which  we 
stand.  It  was  not  legislated  into  ex¬ 
istence.  It  was  born.  It  was  not 
wrought  out  of  the  brain  of  a  commit¬ 
tee,  conference,  or  convention.  It  was 
born  of  a  man’s  interest  in  his  fellow- 
man,  his  love  for  the  right  and  his  rec¬ 
ognition  of  the  individual.  It  was  not 
intended  at  the  first  to  mean  anything 
more  than  the  right  of  the  individual 
to  be  heard  in  matters  pertaining  to 
conference  membership  and  ministerial 
service.  In  other  words,  it  was  not  doc¬ 
trinal,  but  governmental  matters  which 
interested  and  moved  Mr.  O’Kelly  to 
speak  and  act,  but  it  soon  came  to  mean 
the  right  of  the  individual  to  interpret 
God’s  word  for  himself  as  well.  In 
other  words  the  individual  was  to  read 
for  himself,  think  for  himself,  in¬ 
terpret,  for  himself,  act  for  him¬ 
self,  as  well  as  give  an  account  for 
himself.  This  principle  has  been  the 
crowning  glory  of  the  Christians  for  all 
these  years.  We  should  keep  in  mind 
that  in  the  south  we  were  born  of  Meth¬ 
odist  parents;  that  we  breathed  into 
our  lives  the  fervor,  zeal,  customs  and 
doctrines  of  the  Methodist  church ;  that 
we  grew  up  among  the  strongest,  as 
well  as  the  most  pious  men,  homes  and 


15 


churches,  of  that  great  body  of  believ¬ 
ers;  and  that  this  fact  accounts  for 
customs,  metliods  and  practices  in  the 
Southland  which  may  to  some  extent 
he  unlike  the  metliods  of  other  sections 
of  the  country.  Mr.  O’Kelly  made  a 
heroic  effort  to  harmonize  the  discord¬ 
ant  condition  so  that  he  might  remain 
in  the  fellowship  of  the  church  of  his 
early  years.  In  preparing  the  history 
of  the  American  (’hristian  Convention 
I  sought  information  from  Mr.  W.  E. 
MacClenny,  of  Suffolk,  Va.,  who  has 
since  prepared  and  published  “The 
Life  of  James  O’Kelly,”  who  wrote  me 
as  follows : 

“Two  conferences  were  held  at 
Reece’s  Chapel,  in  Charlotte  County, 
Va.,  one  in  1792,  and  the  other  late  in 
1792  or  early  in  1793.  At  one  of  these 
meetings  they  sent  John  Chapel  arid 
E.  Almonds  over  the  mountains  with  a 
petition  for  union  with  Rev.  Francis 
Asbury.  Their  efforts  were  in  vain. 

“The  next  conference  was  held  on 
August  2,  1793,  at  Piney  Crove  church 
in  Chesterfield  County.  Virginia. 
There  they  condemned  the  Episcopal 
form  of  government,  but  they  still  de¬ 
sired  union  with  the  IMetliodist  breth¬ 
ren.  They  prepared  an  address  to  the 
Bishop,  and  asked  that  the  Methodist 
form  of  government  might  be  exam- 


IG 


ined  and  tried  by  the  Scriptures,  and 
amended  according  to  the  Holy  Word. 
That  request  was  denied  by  the  Meth¬ 
odist  brethren. 

Mr.  0  ’Kelly  has  this  to  say  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  fourth  conference.  “And 
it  came  to  pass  on  the  twelfth  month 
(of  1793)  about  the  25th  day  of  the 
month,  we  met  pursuant  to  adjourn¬ 
ment  at  Manakintown  to  receive  the 
ansAver  from  Francis  Asbury.  Our 
friends  made  report  that  his  ansAver  to 
us  was,  H  have  no  power  to  call  such  a 
meeting  as  you  Avish;  therefore,  if  five 
hundred  preachers  should  come  on  their 
knees  before  me,  I  would  not  do  it.’ 
We  formed  our  ministers  on  an  equal¬ 
ity  ;  gave  the  lay  members  the  balance 
of  power  in  the  legislature  ;  and  left  the 
executive  business  in  the  church  collec¬ 
tively.  ’  ’ 

He  was  a  strong  believer  in  sprink¬ 
ling  as  the  Bible  mode  of  baptism,  and 
as  late  as  1809  taught  that  baptism  by 
sprinkling  should  be  the  rule  of  the 
neAv  church  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
modes. 

CHRISTIAN  CHARACTER 
THE  TEST  OF  FELLOWSHIP. 

Christian  character  as  the  test  of  fel¬ 
lowship  is  another  fundamental  princi¬ 
ple  of  the  people  known  as  Christians, 


17 


which  was  horn  not  of  flesh  and  blood, 
nor  of  the  will  of  man,  hut  of  God. 

Near  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  cen¬ 
tury,  Dr.  Ahner  Jones,  of  Hartland, 
Vermont,  then  a  member  of  the  regular 
Baptist  church,  had  a  peculiar  travail 
of  mind  concerning  sectarian  names 
and  human  creeds.  He  had  seen  the 
baleful  influence  of  these  for  many 
years,  had  witnessed  the  divisive  force 
of  those  wolves  in  sheep’s  clothing  as 
they  entered  into  the  flock  of  God  to 
steal  and  kill,  had  heard  the  bitter 
anathemas  of  their  defenders  until  his 
mind  reeled,  his  heart  grew  faint  and 
in  hope  of  better  tilings  he  turned 
away.  He  was  especially  averse  to  hu¬ 
man  creeds.  He  regarded  them  as  so 
many  fines  or  walls  of  separation,  by 
which  the  followers  of  Christ  were  kept 
apart.  He  conceived  the  idea  that  it 
was  not  so  much  what  a  man  believed, 
as  what  he  was,  that  entitled  him  to  the 
favor  of  God  and  the  fellowship  of  the 
saints.  In  those  early  days,  (and  in¬ 
deed  at  the  present  time)  when  a  man 
got  a  new  idea,  he  had  to  get  a  new 
church  to  put  it  in.  The  new  wine 
would  burst  the  old  bottle,  so  that  Dr. 
Jones  was  compelled  to  organize  a  new 
society  in  order  to  teach  his  honest, 
conscientious  convictions.  He  com¬ 
menced  propagating  his  sentiments 


18 


with  zeal,  though  at  that  time  he 
did  not  know  of  another  individual  in 
all  the  world  who  thought  like  himself. 
In  September,  1802,  he  organized  a 
church  at  Lynden,  Vt.,  with  a  mem¬ 
bership  of  twenty -five.  During  1802  he 
organized  another  church  at  Hanover, 

N.  H.,  and  in  March,  1803,  another  in 
Pierpont,  N.  H.  About  this  time  Elias 
Smith,  then  a  Baptist  minister,  was 
preaching  with  great  success  in  Ports¬ 
mouth,  N.  H.  Falling  in  with  Dr. 
Jones’  views  the  church  under  his  care 
was  led  to  adopt  the  same  principles. 
In  1805  Kev.  Mr.  Smith  began  a  publi¬ 
cation  called  The  Christian  Magazine. 
This  publication  was  discontinued  in 
1808  when  its  founder  established  and 
began  publishing  The  Herald  of  Gospel 
Liberty,  the  first  number  of  which  bears 
the  date  of  September  1,  1808.  This 
paper  has  continued  (though  in  differ¬ 
ent  forms  and  at  times  under  different 
names)  until  now,  1911,  and  is  publish¬ 
ed  at  Dayton,  Ohio,  by  the  Christian 
Publishing  Association,  of  which  Hon. 

O.  W.  Whitelock  is  president,  the  Rev. 
J.  Pressley  Barrett,  D.  D.,  editor,  and 
J.  N.  Hess  publishing  agent,  Netum 
Rathbun  being  chosen  agent  January, 
1911. 

No  committee  appointed  by  any  con¬ 
ference,  association  or  convention  ever 


19 


took  under  consideration  the  advisabil¬ 
ity  of  making  Christian  character  the 
test  of  fellowship.  It  was  born  out  of 
the  heart  of  a  man  who  loved  God  and 
wanted  to  see  all  the  believers  united 
in  one  visible  fold.  All  men  cannot  be 
Presbyterians,  nor  Baptists,  nor  Episco¬ 
palians,  nor  Congregationalists,  nor 
Friends,  but  each  individual  may  be  a 
Christian.  The  radical  unit  is  the  one 
man,  the  individual.  Paul  recognized 
this  selfhood  when  he  said :  “For  me  to 
live  is  Christ.”  Dr.  Jones  well  knew 
that  individualism  could  be  abused  and 
debased,  a  fact  we  liave  experienced 
many  times  in  our  history.  But  he 
knew  and  we  know  that  there  is  an 
individualism  that  means  personal 
thinking,  personal  conscience,  personal 
obedience,  personal  faith,  personal  serv¬ 
ice  ;  and  through  this  personal  fellow¬ 
ship  one  with  another,  we  are  learning 
that  uniformity  is  a  false  standard  of 
judgment,  and  that  only  by  bringing 
all  the  individualities  together  do  we 
get  the  right  conception  of  the  church. 
It  seems  that  God  has  taken  some  pains 
to  individualize  us,  giving  to  each  a 
personality  all  his  own ;  and  he  seems 
to  say  to  us,  “Now  you  are  all  differ¬ 
ent,  yet  you  may  all  be  one ;  I  mean  for 
you  to  be  united.  Find  the  common 
measure,  find  the  uniting  line ;  and 


20 


whilst  retaining  each  your  individual¬ 
ity  enter  into  one  another’s  feelings, 
sympathies,  and  activities,  and,  while 
you  enter  into  and  become  parts  of 
communities,  societies  and  church  or¬ 
ganizations,  never  forget  your  individ¬ 
uality,  for  I  meant  the  individual  when 
I  said.  ‘Ye  are  the  branches,  and  every 
one  of  you  shall  give  an  account  of 
hint  self  unto  God.’  ” 

We  called  attention  to  our  Method¬ 
ist  parentage  in  the  South,  and  with 
equal  satisfaction  point  to  our  Baptist 
ancestry  of  New  England.  It  is  some¬ 
thing  to  be  born  well  and  most  certain¬ 
ly  we  have  been,  for  our  test  of  fellow¬ 
ship  has  for  its  earthly  home  a  Baptist 
church  and  the  heart  of  a  devoted  Bap¬ 
tist  preacher.  Should  we  build  our 
meeting  houses  on  the  river  banks  of 
all  New  England,  and  insist  upon  all 
our  applicants  for  membership  going 
down  into  the  water  and  coming  up  out 
of  the  water,  it  would  be  a  most  natur¬ 
al  consequence  of  our  childhood  home 
and  teaching.  And,  I  presume  that 
throughout  all  New  England  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  immersion  is  given  more  em¬ 
phasis  and  made  more  prominent 
among  our  people  than  in  any  other 
section  of  the  country 


21 


THE  NAME,  CHRISTIAN. 

The  name  Christian  was  given  by  di¬ 
vine  authority  to  the  followers  of  Je¬ 
sus  Christ,  and  was  adopted  as  our  only 
name  on  August  4,  1794.  Those  who 
had  withdrawn  from  the  Methodist 
church  in  1792  together  with  the  num¬ 
ber  that  had  been  added  to  them  during 
the  two  years,  met  in  conference  in 
Lebanon  church,  Surrey  County,  Va., 
the  first  of  August,  1794.  They  were 
then  Republican  Methodists.  Rev.  Rice 
Haggard,  standing  with  a  copy  of  the 
New  Testament  scriptures  in  his  hand, 
said:  “Brethren,  this  is  a  sufficient  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  and  by  it  we  are 
told  that  the  disciples  were  called 
Christians,  and  I  move  that  henceforth 
and  forever  the  followers  of  Christ  be 
known  as  Christians  simply.”  The  mo¬ 
tion  was  unanimously  adopted,  since 
which  time  we  have  had  no  other  name. 
In  some  localities  we  have  been  called 
“New  Lights.”  It  has  always  been  an¬ 
noying  to  me  to  be  called  a  “New 
Light.”  A  lady  once  said  to  me,  “You 
belong  to  the  New  Light  church,  don’t 
you  ?  ”  I  said,  ‘  ‘  To  what  church  !  ’  ’ 
“Why,  to  the  New  Light.”  I  replied 
that  I  had  never  heard  of  such  a 
church.  “Why,”  said  she,  “You  are 
sometimes  called  New  Lights,  aren’t 


22 


you?”  I  said,  “We  may  be,  and  you 
might  sometimes  be  called  handsome, 
but  that  wouldn’t  make  you  so.” 

One  thing  is  sure,  we  never  adopted, 
accepted  or  recognized  the  name  New 
Light,  as  the  name  of  our  people.  The 
first  use  of  the  word  New  Light,  as  far 
as  known  to  me  was  by  the  Presbyter¬ 
ians  with  whom  it  seems  to  have  origi¬ 
nated.,  I  quote  verbatim  from  page 
617  of  Buck’s  Theological  Dictionary, 
published  by  J.  and  J.  Woodward  in 
1847: 

“In  1716  the  Presbytery  resolved  to 
divide  its  members  into  four  subordi¬ 
nate  bodies,  to  be  called  the  Presby¬ 
teries  of  Philadelphia,  Snowhill,  New¬ 
castle,  and  Long  Island  ;  and  to  meet 
annually  as  the  Presbytery  of  the 
whole,  under  the  appellation  of  the 
synod  of  Philadelphia. 

“In  1741  this  synod  was  divided  by 
an  unliappy  controversy,  which  origi¬ 
nated  in  the  ministry  of  the  Rev. 
George  Whitefield,  info  two  independ¬ 
ent  and  rival  synods.  The  new  body 
was  called  the  Synod  of  New  York, 
and  its  members  were  styled  in  derision 
New  Lights,  and  the  New  Side,  while 
those  who  remained  in  the  Synod  of 
Philadelphia,  with  no  better  spirit, 
were  stigmatized  as  the  Old  Side  and 
Old  Lights. 


23 


“The  root  of  bitterness  undoubtedly 
subsisted  in  the  Synod  before  Mr. 
Whitefield’s  arrival  in  this  country; 
hut  the  fruits  of  discord  did  not  appear 
until  the  Old  Lights  contended  that  it 
was  disorderly  to  admit  that  eloquent 
man  into  the  pulpits  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  churches.  They  regarded  him  as 
a  zealous  but  imprudent  man ;  as  a  dis¬ 
orderly  Episcopalian;  as  a  disturber  of 
the  peace  of  ministers  and  congrega¬ 
tions,  whose  revival  measures  were  of 
questionable  propriety. 

“The  New  Lights  thought  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  churches  in  great  need  of  re¬ 
vivals  and  that  the  preaching  of  Mr. 
AA^hitefield  was  well  calculated  to  pro¬ 
duce  them,  by  alarming  formalists, 
stirring  up  the  people  of  God  and  con¬ 
vincing  the  impenitent.” 

I  have  been  told  by  the  older  minis¬ 
ters  of  the  Christians,  that  when  Rev. 
Barton  W.  Stone  announced  his  inten¬ 
tion  of  withdrawing  from  the  Presby¬ 
terian  church,  and  told  his  reasons 
therefor,  he  was  called  a  “New-Light.” 
This'  would  be  perfectly  natural ;  for 
the  Presbyterians  of  Cane  Ridge,  Ky., 
would  be  familiar  with  the  facts  aboye 
cited,  and  would  at  once  associate  Rev. 
Mr.  Stone  with  the  Rev.  Mr.  Whitefield 
and  class  him  with  the  “New  Lights” 
of  1741. 


24 


Our  right  to  the  name  Christian  is 
beyond  controversy  even  though  there 
is  another  body  of  believers  laying 
claim  to  it.  It  is  a  beautiful  name, 
around  which  there  is  more  glory  than 
has  ever  adorned  any  human  name  and 
it  is  not  a  surprise  that  it  is  coveted. 
With  reference  to  this  people  and  their 
right  to  the  name  I  quote  from  a  re¬ 
ported  speech  of  Alexander  Campbell 
as  published  in  the  Millennial  Har¬ 
binger  in  1839.  Let  it  be  remembered 
that  Mr.  Campbell  was  the  editor  of  this 
paper  at  the  time  above  mentioned. 

“Our  Name — Into  what,  or  into 
whom  have  we  been  immersed?  Into 
Calvin,  Luther,  Wesley,  Campbell  or 
Reformation?  If  not  then  why  nick¬ 
name  us,  or  we  nickname  ourselves, 
when  we  assume  or  choose  such  desig¬ 
nation?  Shall  we  be  called  Disciples 
of  Christ,  or  Christians  ?  Why  not  call . 
ourselves  Christians?  Not  because  we 
have  another  leader  than  Christ,  for 
He  is  our  teacher.  We  believe  in  Him, 
were  immersed  into  His  death,  and  have 
thus  put  on  Christ.  But  we  have  been 
anticipated.  The  term  Christian  in 
New  England  and  in  some  other  sec¬ 
tions  of  this  land  is  a  name  chosen  and 
appropriated  by  a  party  who  boast  that 
they  are  Unitarians — disbelieve  in  bap¬ 
tism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  re- 


25 


fuse  to  celebrate  the  Lord’s  death  as 
often  as  they  celebrate  his  resurrection, 
etc.,  etc. 

“Were  I  or  any  brother  to  traverse 
much  of  New  York,  New  England  and 
some  other  sections,  and  call  ourselves 
Christians,  as  a  party  name,  we  should 
be  admitted  by  all  Unitarians  and  re¬ 
jected  by  all  of  a  different  belief.  One 
party  would  fraternize  with  us,  while 
others  would  repudiate  us,  and  un¬ 
church  us,  because  of  our  Unitarianism, 
Arianism,  etc.,  etc.  For  this  reason  we 
prefer  an  unappropriated  name,  which 
is  indeed  neither  more  nor  less  than  the 
scriptural  equivalent  of  Christian;  for 
who  were  called  Christians  first  at  An¬ 
tioch?  They  had  a  prior,  a  more  an¬ 
cient  name.  They  wore  called  Disci¬ 
ples.  Disciples  of  whom?  Of  Christ. 
Disciples  of  Christ  is  then  a  more 
ancient  title  than  Christian,  while  it 
fully  includes  the  whole  idea.  It  is 
then  as  divine,  as  authoritative  as  the 
name  Christian  and  more  ancient.  Be¬ 
sides  it  is  more  descriptive,  and,  better 
still,  it  is  unappropriated.  It  claims 
our  preference  for  four  reasons : 

“First — It  is  more  incient. 

“Second — It  is  more  descriptive. 

‘  ‘  Third — It  is  more  scriptural. 

“Fourth — It  is  more  unappropriated. 

“First — Our  first  reason  is  indis- 


26 


putable,  for  the  Disciples  of  Christ 
were  called  Christians  first  at  Antioch. 
Those  who  from  the  day  of  Pentecost 
were  known  throughout  Judea,  Galilee, 
Samaria  and  among  the  Gentiles  as  Dis¬ 
ciples  of  Christ,  were  at  Antioch  many 
years  afterward  called  for  the  first 
time,  Christians. 

“Second — It  is  more  deserif)tive,  be¬ 
cause  many  people  are  named  after 
their  country  or  their  political  leaders, 
and  sometimes  after  their  religious 
leaders,  who  would  feel  it  an  insult  to 
be  called  the  pupils  or  the  disciples  of 
the  persons  whose  name  they  bear. 
Germans,  Franks,  Greeks,  Americans, 
.Columbians,  Jeffersonians,  etc.,  do  not 
describe  the  persons  who  bear  their 
names,  for  they  are  not  supposed  to  be 
the  pupils  of  such  men.  Might  not  a 
stranger,  an  alien,  imagine  that  Chris¬ 
tian,  like  American  or  Roman,  had  some 
reference  to  country  or  some  benefac¬ 
tor,  or  some  particular  circumstance, 
rather  than  scholarship?  Disciple  of 
Christ  is  then  a  more  descriptive  and 
definite  designation  than  Christian. 

“Third— It  is  more  scriptural.  Luke 
wrote  his  acts  some  thirty  years  after 
the  ascension.  Now  in  his  writings, 
which  give  at  least  thirty  years’  history 
of  the  primitive  church,  the  word 
Christian  occurs  but  twice — used  only 


27 


by  Antiochans  and  by  King  Agrippa ; 
but  no  disciple  as  far  as  Tjuke  relates, 
ever  spoke  of  himself  or  brethren  under 
that  designation.  More  than  thirty 
times  they  are  called  disciples  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Luke  and  other 
intelligent  men  call  them  often  Breth¬ 
ren  and  Disciples,,  but  never  Christians. 
Again  we  have  the  word  Christian  but 
once  in  all  the  epistles,  and  then  in  cir¬ 
cumstances  which  make  it  pretty  evi¬ 
dent  it  was  used  rather  by  the  enemies 
than  by  the  friends  of  the  brotherhood. 
Our  proposition  is,  then,  abundantly 
proved  that  it  was  a  more  scriptural 
and  consequently  a  more  authoritative 
and  divine  designation  than  Christian  • 

“Fourth — It  is  more  unappropriated 
at  the  present  time.  Unitarians,  Arians 
and  sundry  other  newly  risen  sects 
abroad  are  zealous  for  the  name  Chris¬ 
tian,  while  we  are  the  only  people  on 
earth  fairly  and  undisputably  in  the 
use  of  the  title.  Disciples  of  Christ. 

“For  these  four  reasons  I  prefer  this 
designation  to  any  other  which  has 
been  offered.  Can  any  one  offer  better 
reasons  for  a  better  name?” 

There  was  a  time  when  Alexander 
Campbell  was  opposed  to  using  the 
name  Christian  as  a  denominational 
name. 


2S 


In  tlie  Christian  Messenger  of  Octo¬ 
ber,  1843,  appears  an  article  in  defense 
of  the  name  Disciple  and  yet  favoring 
the  name  Christian.  The  article  is  sign¬ 
ed  A.  S.  The  editor.  Rev.  B.  AV.  Stone, 
in  commenting  upon  the  article,  says : 
“On  .this  article  we  wish  to  suggest 

% 

a  few  remarks : 

“First. — AA^e  are  pleased  to  find  that 
Brother  A.  Campbell  so  highly  approves 
these  sentiments.  He  will  no  longer 
contend  for  Disciples  as  our  family 
name,  in  future ;  no  longer  will  he  re¬ 
ject  the  name  Christian  because  others 
had  taken  it  before  us.” 

But  why  should  we  desire  to  be  call¬ 
ed  Christians?  Are  there  not  many 
other  names  just  as  good?  Is  not  one 
name  as  good  as  another?  Some  even 
go  so  far  as  to  say,  “There  is  nothing  in 
a  name.”  But  evidently  God  thought 
there  was  something  in  a  name  when  he 
changed  the  names  of  certain  individ¬ 
uals  that  their  names  might  correspond 
to  their  new  life  and  character.  Gen. 
17:5.  Gen.  35: 10.  John  1:42.  Rev. 
3 : 12.  I  am  quite  sure  that  bankers 
think  there  is  something  in  a  name,  and 
if  you  think  they  do  not,  you  try  to  bor¬ 
row  money.  Suppose  you  go  to  a  bank 
and  ask  for  $100  for  thirty  days.  You 
date  your  note  correctly  and  write  the 


29 


amount  on  the  right  line  and  fill  out  all 
the  blanks  properly.  You  hand  it  to 
the  banker,  he  looks  it  over  and  hands 
it  back  to  you,  saying  thad  he  cannot 
lend  you  money  on  that  paper.  You 
say,  “A¥hy  not?”  “Because,  sir,  there 
IS  no  name  signed  to  it.  You  see,  sir, 
that  names  are  important  things  with 
bankers.”  “Oh!  if  that  is  all,  I  can 
quickly  fix  that,”  and  you  write  a 
name,  for  names  are  important  things 
with  bankers.  Again  the  banker  ex¬ 
amines  the  note  and  returns  it,  saying 
that  he  cannot  comply  with  your  re¬ 
quest.  “Why,  there  is  a  name  to  it,  is 
there  not?”  Yes,  but  banks  do  not 
legard  all  names  with  equal  favor  and 
the  one  you  have  written  cannot  be  ac¬ 
cepted  here,  for  names  mean  something 
with  bankers,  you  see.  If  you  think 
there  is  nothing  in  a  name,  you  try 
signing  some  other  name  than  your  own 
to  a  check,  or  note,  or  deed,  or  mort¬ 
gage,  or  even  a  letter,  and  you  will  find 
out  that  the  law  regards  names  as  very 
important  and  significant  things.  Sup¬ 
pose  an  estate  is  willed  to  a  man  by  the 
name  of  Garrard.  The  name  Garrard 
then  becomes  important  with  reference 
to  that  particular  estate.  Miller,  or 
Nelson,  or  Peck  or  Steck  may  be  as 
good  a  man,  but  their  names  bar  them 


80 


4 


f't 


from  possessing  that  property.  Sup¬ 
pose  it  is  to  be  willed  to  Jeremiah  Gar¬ 
rard,  then  the  name  Jeremiah  becomes 
important  and  no  other  Garrard  could 
lay  rightful  claim  to  the  estate.  Sup¬ 
pose  it  is  to  be  willed  to  James  Jere¬ 
miah  Garrard,  then  the  name  James  be¬ 
comes  important  and  John  Jeremiah 
Garrard  could’  not  possess  said  estate 
under  the  will.  In  law  names  mean 
something,"  and  why  not  in  religion? 
Names  mean  much  in  home  life.  Your 
name  is  Smith.  Would  you  he  willing 
for  your  wife  to  he  called  Jones?  Jones 
may  be  a  handsomer  man  than  you ;  he 
may  have  more  money  than  you;  he 
may  live  in  a  finer  house  and  ride  in  a 
more  elegant  automobile  than  you;  hut 
if  your  wife  should  persist  in  being 
called  Mrs.  Jones,  there  would  be  a  do¬ 
mestic  difficulty  and  no  one  would 
blame  you  for  it.  Why?  Because  it  is 
the  law  of  both  heaven  and  earth  that 
the  wife  shall  wear  the  name  of  her 
husband,  and  the  wife  who  is  not  will¬ 
ing  to  wear  her  husband’s  name  to  the 
absolute  exclusion  of  all  other  names  is 
not  worthy  of  her  husband,  and  as  such 
has  no  rights  that  he  is  hound  to  re¬ 
spect.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  “husband  of 
whom  the  whole  family,  both  in  heaven 
and  earth,  is  named.”  The  church  is 


31 


the  bride,  the  Lamb’s  wife.  Has  not 
the  husband  an  unquestioned  right  to 
demand  that  his  name  shall  be  hers? 
Has  she  any  right  whatever  to  wear 
any  other  name?  AVill  it  please  the  di¬ 
vine  husband  any  more  than  it  will  tlie 
human  husband,  for  his  wife  to  prefer 
another  name  to  his?  AVe  accept  the 
name  Christian  as  the  w’ife  accepts  the 
name  of  her  husband,  or  the  child  takes 
the  name  of  its  parents.  The  name  is 
the  birth-right  of  every  child  of  God. 
God  named  his  children.  They  were 
first  called  Christians  at  Antioch,  or  as 
the  clear  sense  of  the  passage  is,  “They 
were  by  divine  appointment,  first  called 
Christians  at  Antioch.”  The  name 
Christian  beautifully  designates  a  fol¬ 
lower  of  Christ.  It  means  nothing  less 
and  should  never  be  made  to  mean  any¬ 
thing  more. 

And  more;  no  church  with  a. test  of 
fellowship  that  excludes  some  of  the 
followers  of  Christ,  has  any  right  to 
the  name  that  includes  all  the  followers 
of  Christ;  as  our  test  of  fellowship  ex¬ 
cludes  none  of  the  followers  of  Christ 
we  have  a  right  to  the  name  that  in¬ 
cludes  all  the  followers  of  Christ. 

THE  BIBLE  OUR  RULE  OF  FAITH 
AND  PRACTICE. 

The  Bible  “Our  rule  of  Faith  and 


32 


Practice”  was  born  of  a  most  extraor¬ 
dinary  revival  of  religion, .  beginning 
with  the  Presbyterians  of  Tennessee 
and  Kentucky  as  early  as  1799  and  con¬ 
tinuing  until  about  the  close  of  1801. 
That  the  reader  may  have  some  idea  of 
the  birth  throes  of  that  great  awaken¬ 
ing  I  venture  to  give  a  brief  history  of 
it,  as  gathered  from  “The  Story  of  a 
Country  Church,  by  Charles  W.  Hoff¬ 
man.  ’  ’ 

“In  the  summer  of  1799  at  Red  River, 
Kentucky — religious  services  had  been 
held  in  the  church  from  Friday  until 
Monday.  After  the  sermon  on  the  last 
day,  an  elderly  lady  uttered  a  loud 
shout.  The  congregation  suddenly  be¬ 
came  exceedingly  quiet.  William  Mc¬ 
Gee  and  his  brother,  John,  were  pres¬ 
ent  ;  the  former  sat  down  upon  the 
floor,  and  the  latter  began  to  tremble. 
John  McGee  attempted  to  preach;  the 
people  were  eager  to  hear;  he  became 
so  agitated  that  his  effort  failed;  he 
exclaimed  that  there  was  a  greater 
than  he  preaching  and  exhorted  the 
people  to  “let  the  Lord  reign  in  their 
hearts;”  immediately  the  awful  silence 
was  broken  by  mingled  cries  for  mercy 
and  shouts  of  ecstasy.  The  congrega¬ 
tion  swayed  as  trees  in  the  wind.  The 
excitement  became  intense,  the  aisles 


33 


filled  with  exliorters ;  some  prayed,  oth¬ 
ers  sang,  while  the  proprieties  of  relig-!  p 
ions  worship  were  disregarded.  Ip 
their  agitation  men,  women  and  chil¬ 
dren  “fell”  until  the  floor  was  covered. 


The  news  of  this  remarkable  manifes 
tation  of  what  the  Rev.  McGready  andl| 
the  McGees  were  pleased  to  call  “God’sl| 
Spirit”  spread  like  wildfire.  A  relig-| 
ious  fervor  seized  the  whole  commun¬ 
ity.  On  the  Green  river  and  the  Cum-j 
berland,  the  Licking,  the  Miamis  and 
the  Ohio  the  populace  flocked  to  the 
meetings.  The  capacity  of  the  churches' 
was  inadequate  to  accommodate  thef^- 
multitudes.  Services  were  held  in  thep 
forests  and  “camp  meetings”  were 
troduced.  Through  the  forests  for  hun-|| 
dreds  of  miles  came  the  worshipers  in^|!;i 


their  wagons,  with  provisions  sufficient 


to  maintain  them  for  weeks.  All  labor 


M 


was  suspended ;  the  farmer  left  the  har-^ 
vest  in  the  fields  and  hastened  to  par-'  | 
take  of  the  “Bread  of  Life;”  the  hunt-  | 
er  ceased  his  wanderings  in  quest  of  the  | 
deer;  the  blasphemer  praised  God,  and  g 
the  inebriate  practiced  sobriety. 


,a 


Camp  meetings  held  in  every  locality  | 
of  Kentucky  and  southern  Ohio  follow¬ 


ed  each  other  in  rapid  succession.  At  | 
every  gathering  hundreds,  and  some-  | 
times  thousands  would  “fall”  and  re-  I 


34 


main  in  a  state  of  stupor  for  hours. 
Their  breathing  became  slow,  and  all 
the  physical  faculties  were  apparently 
suspended.  As  the  enthusiasm  became 
more  intense  those  who  fell  would  be¬ 
gin  to  roll.  One  bodily  exercise  follow¬ 
ed  another ;  the.  rolls  were  succeeded  by 
the  “jerks.”  The  “jerks”  consisted  of 
throwing  the  head  and  upper  half  of 
the  body  backward  and  forward. 
There  seemed  to  be  no  limit  to  these 
excesses.  Congregations  would  begin 
to  laugh,  and  at  times  the  “holy  laugh” 
became  so  vociferous  that  it  could  be 
heard  for  miles.  When  the  revival  was 
at  its  height  the  “jerks”  were  accom¬ 
panied  by  the  “barks.”  “Forced,  as 
the  victims  claimed  to  be,  to  imperson¬ 
ate  a  dog,  they  fell  on  all  fours  and 
barked  and  snapped  and  showed  their 
teeth  in  such  a  manner  as  to  fill  the 
spectators  with  horror.  ’  ’ 

As  irrational  as  all  these  excesses 
may  appear  they  are  inexplicable.  No 
one  was  exempt ;  the  scholar,  the  poor 
ignorant  backwoodsman,^  the  saint  and 
the  sinner  ‘  ‘  fell.  ’  ’  In  their  stupor  they 
saw  bright  visions  and  dreamed  of 
realms  of  bliss.  They  awoke  either  in 
deep  despondency  because  of  their  sins, 
or  in  a  state  of  ecstasy,  rejoicing  in 
their  salvation.  Children,  after  pass- 


35 


ing  through  these  experiences,  became 
possessed  of  remarkable  gifts  of  prayer 
and  exhortation,  and  their  petitions  to 
Almighty  God  couched  in  language  so 
clear  in  expression  and  pertinent  in  its 
application,  have  never  been  explained 
except  on  the  ground  that  “their  heads 
were  lifted  np  in  the  ways  of  the 
Lord,”  and  their  minds  “cpiickened  by 
the  divine  spirit.”  Many  preachers  ad¬ 
vised  their  congregations  to  stay  away 
from  these  meetings  and  endeavored  to 
explain  to  them  that  it  was  the  wildest 
fantasy  of  an  overheated  imagination. 
Other  ministers,  as  pominent  and 
learned,  claimed  that  it  was  a  direct 
visitation  of  God.  AVhen  the  “falling” 
of  five  hundred  persons,  as  though  east 
down  by  a  cannon  ball,  had  been  wit¬ 
nesses,  who  could  disbelieve  ? 

At  the  close  of  this  great  revival  Bar¬ 
ton  W.  Stone,  a  learned  and  eloquent 
minister,  with  Richard  McNemar,  John 
Thompson,  John  Diinlevy  and  Robert 
Marshall,  withdrew  from  the  Synod  of 
Kentucky. 

As  early  as  1803  or  1804  Rev.  Rice 
Haggard  who  had  been  a  colaborer 
with  J ames  0  ’Kelly  and  one  of  the  min¬ 
isters  who  went  out  with  him,  and  who 
had  proposed  the  name  Christian  as  the 
only  name  for  the  followers  of  Christ 


36 


had  settled  in  Kentucky  and  was  pres¬ 
ent  at  the  meeting  of  the  Springfield 
Presbytery  in  1804,  and  Elder  Samuel 
Rodgers  says  it  was  Haggard  first  who 
suggested  to  Stone  the  propriety  of 
taking  the  name  “Christian”  as  that 
divinely  given  at  Antioch. 

As  well  might  he  expected,  a  large 
mimher  of  Presbyterian  members  with 
most  of  the  converts  of  this  great  re¬ 
vival,  rallied  around  these  men  who  had 
labored  so  faithfully  and  had  been  so 
signally  blessed  in  their  labors.  As 
they  had  already  felt  the  scourge  of  a 
human  creed,  the  churches  then  under 
their  control,  with  such  others  as  they 
organized,  agreed  to  take  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  their  only  written  rule  of 
faith  and  practice. 

David  Purvianee  was  the  first  as  far 
as  known  to  be  ordained  to  the  work  of 
the  Gospel  ministry  by  the  new-born 
church  in  the  west.  For  a  while  after 
their  withdrawal,  they  continued  the 
Presbyterian  form  of  government  and 
formed  themselves  into  an  independent 
organization  which  they  eallecf  the 
“Springfield  Presbytery.”  Even  this, 
they  thought  savored  too  much  of  ec- 
clesiasticism  and  on  June  28,  1804,  they 
concluded  to  dissolve  this  Presbytery, 
to  allow  each  church  to  be  entirely  in- 


37 


dependent,  each  member  thereof  to 
teach  and  believe  those  principles 
which  from  a  careful  and  candid  exam¬ 
ination  of  the  scriptures,  they  conceiv¬ 
ed  to  be  true,  and  to  be  known  as  Chris¬ 
tians  only.  In  other  words  they  exalted 
the  Bible  above  creed  and  conscience 
above  priestly  dictation. 

The  final  act  in  the  withdrawal  was 
expressed  in  what  was  known  as  the 
last  will  and  testament  of  Springfield 
Presbytery,  a  copy  of  which  is  herein 
given.  . 

Elder  Stone  says  of  this  (Springfield) 
Presbytery : 

“Under  the  name  of  Springfield 
Presbytery  we  went  forward  preach¬ 
ing,  and  constituting  churches ;  but  we 
had  not  worn  our  name  more  than  one 
year,  before  we  saw  it  savored  of  a 
party  spirit.  AVith  the  man-made 
creeds  we  threw  it  overboard,  and  took 
the  name  Christian — the  name  given  to 
the  disciples  by  divine  appointment  first 
at  Antioch.  AVe  published  a  pamphlet 
on  this  name,  written  by  Elder  Rice 
Haggard,  who  had  lately  united  with 
us.”* 

THE  LAST  WILL  AND  TESTAMENT 
OF  THE  SPRINGFIELD  PRES¬ 
BYTERY. 

For  whete  a  testament  is,  there  must 
of  necessity  be  the  death  of  the  testa- 
38 


tor;  for  a  testament  is  of  force  after 
men  are  dead,  otherwise  it  is  of  no 
strength  at  all  while  the  testator  liveth. 
Thou  fool,  that  which  thou  sowest  is 
not  quickened,  except  it  die.  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you,  except  a  corn  of 
wheat  fall  in  the  ground,  and  die,  it 
abidetli  alone ;  but  if  it  die,  it  hringeth 
forth  fruit.  Whose  voice  then  shook 
the  earth ;  but  now  he  has  promised, 
saying,  yet  once  more  I  shake  not  the 
earth  only,  but  also  heaven.  And  this 
word  yet  once  more,  signifies  the  re¬ 
moving  of  those  things  that  are  shaken 
as  of  things  that  are  made,  that  those 
things  which  cannot  be  shaken  may  re¬ 
main — Scripture. 

LAST  WILL  AND  TESTAMENT. 

\ 

The  Presbytery  of  Springfield,  sit¬ 
ting  at  Caneridge,  in  the  county  of 
Bourbon,  being  through  a  gracious 
Providence,  in  more  than  ordinary 
health,  growing  in  strength  and  size 
daily ;  and  in  perfect  soundness  and 
composure  of  mind;  but  knowing  it  is 
appointed  for  all  delegated  bodies  once 
to  die,  and  considering  that  the  life  of 
every  such  body  is  very  uncertain,  do 
make  and  ordain  this,  our  last  Will  and 
Testament,  in  manner  and  form  follow¬ 
ing,  viz. : 


39 


Imprimis.  We  will,  that  this  body  be 
dissolved,  and  sink  into  union  with  the 
Bodj^  of  Christ  at  large ;  for  there  is 
but  one  body  and  one  spirit,  even  as 
we  are  called  in  one  hope  of  our  calling. 

Item.  We  will,  that  our  name  of  dis¬ 
tinction,  with  its  Eeverend  title,  be  for¬ 
gotten,  that  there  be  one  Lord  over 
God’s  heritage,  and  his  name  one. 

Item.  We  will,  that  our  power  of 
making  laws  for  the  government  of  the 
church,  and  executing  them  by  delegat¬ 
ed  authority,  forever  cease;  that  the 
people  may  have  free  course  to  the  Bi¬ 
ble,  and  adopt  the  law  of  the  spirit  of 
life  in  Christ  Jesus. 

Item.  We  will,  that  candidates  for 
the  Gospel  ministry  henceforth  study 
the  Holy  scriptures  with  fervent  pray¬ 
er,  and  obtain  license  from  God  to 
preach  the  simple  Gospel,  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  sent  down,  from  heaven,  without 
any  mixture  of  philosophy,  vain  deceit, 
traditions  of  men,  or  the  rudiments  of 
the  world.  And  let  none  henceforth 
take  this  honor  to  himself,  but  he  that 
is  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron. 

Item.  We  will,  that  the  church  of 
Christ  assume  her  native  right  of  in¬ 
ternal  government— try  her  candidates 
for  the  ministry,  as  to  their  soundness 


40 


in  the  faith,  acquaintance  with  experi¬ 
mental  religion,  grayity  and  aptness  to 
teach  and  admit  no  other  proof  of  their 
authority  but  Christ  speaking  in  them. 
We  will,  that  the  Church  of  Christ  look 
up  to  the  Lord  of  the  harvest  to  send 
forth  laborers  into  the  harvest ;  and 
that  she  resume  her  primitive  right  of 
trying  those  who  say  they  are  Apostles, 
and  are  not. 

Item.  We  will,  that  each  particular 
church,  as  a  body,  actuated  by  the  same 
spirit,  choose  her  own  preacher,  and 
support  him  by  a  free-will  offering, 
without  written  call  or  subscription — 
admit  members — remove  offenses — and 
never  henceforth  delegate  her  right  of 
government  to  any  man  or  set  of  men 
whatever. 

Item.  We  will,  that  the  people 
henceforth  take  the  Bible  as  the  only 
sure  guide  to  heaven ;  and  as  many  as 
are  offended  with  other  books  which 
stand  in  competition  with  it,  may  cast 
them  into  the  fire  if  they  choose ;  for  it 
is  better  to  enter  into  life,  having  one 
book,  than  having  many  to  be  cast  into 
hell. 

Item.  We  will,  that  preachers  and 
people  cultivate  a  spirit  of  mutual  for 
bearance ;  pray  more  and  dispute  less ; 


41 


and  while  they  behold  signs  of  the  times 
look  up,  and  confidently  expect  that  re¬ 
demption  draweth  nigh. 

Item.  We  will,  that  our  weak  breth¬ 
ren,  who  may  have  been  wishing  to 
make  the  Presbytery  of  Springfield 
their  king,  and  wot  not  what  is  now  be¬ 
come  of  it,  betake  themselves  to  the 
Rock  of  Ages,  and  follow  Jesus  for  the 
future. 

Item.  We  will,  that  the  Synod  of 
Kentucky  examine  every  member  who 
may  be  suspected  of  having  departed 
from  the  Confession  of  Faith,  and  sus¬ 
pend  every  such  suspected  heretic  im¬ 
mediately  in  order  that  the  oppressed 
may  go  free,  and  taste  the  sweets  of 
gospel  liberty. 

Item.  We  will,  tliat  Ja - ,  the  au¬ 

thor  of  two  letters  lately  published  in 
Lexington,  be  encouraged  in  his  zeal  to 
destroy  partyism— we  will,  moreover, 
tliat  our  })ast  conduct  be  examined  into 
by  all  who  may  have  correct  informa¬ 
tion  ;  but  let  foreigners  beware  of 
speaking  evil  things  which  they  know 
not. 

Item.  Finally,  we  will,  that  our  sis¬ 
ter  ])odies  read  their  Bibles  carefully, 
that  they  may  see  their  fate  there  de- 


42 


termined,  and  prepare  for  death  before 
it  is  too  late. 

Springfield  Presbytery. 

June  28,  1804. 

Robert  Marshall, 

John  Dunlevy, 

Richard  McNemar, 

B.  W.  Stone, 

John  Thompson, 

David  Purviance, 

Witnesses. 

It  is  a  remarkable  item  in  the  history 
of  our  movement  that  the  five  who  first 
withdrew  from  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  the  west,  were  lost  to  the 
church  they  helped  to  start,  Marshall 
and  Thompson  returned  to  the  Presby¬ 
terians,  McNemar  and  Dunlevy  united 
with  the  Shakers,  and  Stone  was  lost 
to  us  in  his  affiliation  with  the  Disciples, 
with  which  people  he  never  united  ex¬ 
cept  in  co-operation.  Rev.  J.  J.  Sum- 
merhell,  D.  D.,  and  Rev.  0.  B.  Whit¬ 
aker,  D.  D.,  both  of  whom  have  careful¬ 
ly  investigated  the  matter,  declare  that 
Mr.  Stone  never  connected  himself  with 
the  Disciple  movement — that  at  the 
most  he  only  co-operated  with  them  for 
the  sake  of  the  union  idea. 

It  is  certain  that  Mr.  Stone  did  not 
meet  Mr.  Campbell  until  1824,  and  that 
no  union  of  any  character  whatsoever 


43 


was  formed  earlier  than  1832  and  then 
none  that  bound  any  except  those  who 
were  present  and  parties  to  it,  and  it 
originally  meant  no  more  than  co-oper¬ 
ation  in  evangelization,  but  it  resulted 
in  great  loss  to  the  Christians,  both  in 
numbers  and  influence.  Elder  Stone 
had  been  wearing  the  name  Christian 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  and 
preaching  the  gospel  with  the  Bible  as 
the  only  rule  of  faith  and  practice  for 
full  twenty  years  before  he  met  Mr. 
Campbell,  and  there  is  small  reason  for 
believing  that  he  ever  turned  away 
from  his  original  purpose  except  to  co¬ 
operate  with  the  Disciples  of  Christ  in 
what  promised  to  him  a  fruitful  fleld 
of  evangelization. 

The  Bible  our  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice  like  the  other  three  came  into  ex¬ 
istence  not  by  legislation,  but  by  birth, 
born  of  God,  born  of  the  times  and 
conditions  of  men,  and  it  is  worthy  of 
note  that  by  a  strange  coincidence  un¬ 
explainable  except  from  the  direct  in¬ 
terposition  of  God,  the  Christians  of  the 
west  came  out  from  their  so-called  or¬ 
thodox  friends,  about  the  same  time  as 
those  of  the  south  and  east;  and  what 
adds  to  the  beauty  of  the  coincidence 
is  that  they  adopted  precisely  the  same 
name,  asserted  the  same  right,  estab- 


44 


lished  the  same  test,  and  added  the  much 
needed  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
that,  too,  when  they  were  entirely  un¬ 
acquainted  with  the  iact  that  others  in 
the  different  parts  of  the  United  States 
had  l)een  moved  by  the  same  spirit  and 
engaged  in  the  same  work.  It  seems 
now  tliat  God  intended  by  this  to  leave 
not  even  the  possibility  of  a  doubt  but 
that  the  Christians  were  to  finally  over¬ 
throw  all  creeds,  all  divisions,  harmon¬ 
ize  all  .sects,  put  to  shame  all  human 
names,  and  lead  the  way  to  the  oneness 
of  God’s  people.  The  time  when  these 
principles  were  first  made  known  was 
most  opportune  indeed.  It  was  soon 
after  the  Declaration  of  Independence 
and  when  the  peculiar  spirit  of  the 
times  seems  not  only  to  have  demanded 
political  freedom,  but  religious  liberty 
as  well.  Keligion  and  politics  for  once 
seem  to  have  united 'in  one  great  effort 
to  lift  man  from  political  oppression 
and  religious  bondage  into  political  and 
religious  freedom.  To  give  him  the 
rights  of  a  free  man  in  body  and  soul 
as  God  had  planned  for  him. 

Of  the  peculiar  situation  of  the  times 
and  our  origin  and  principles  J.  It. 
Freese,  M.  D.,  has  this  to  say : 

‘  ‘  The  situation,  being  that  of  a  coun¬ 
try  which  had  only  of  late  assumed  the 
form  of  a  Republic,  and  hence,  needed 


43 


cl  religious  co-worker,  in  order  to 
strengthen  her  in  her  onward  march  to 
fame,  to  glory  and  renown !  In  almost 
any  other  country  the  Christian  relig¬ 
ion  would  have  been  opposed  to  the  po¬ 
litical  form  of  government ;  but,  in  this, 
it  was  synonymous  with  it.  The  unity 
of  their  rise  in  different  parts  of  the 
Union,  although  at  the  time,  entirely 
unknown  to  each  other,  would  seem 
strangely  to  prove  that  it  was  through 
the  direct  interposition  of  Divine 
Providence,  and  that  this  remark-’ 
able  incident  was  ever  to  stand  as  a 
memento  of  the  fact.  The  unanimity 
of  sentiment  and  government  adopted 
by  each,  although  entirely  unbeknown 
to  the  other.  The  Presbyterians  have 
had  their  Calvin,  the  Lutherans  their 
Luther,  the  Methodists  their  Wesley, 
the  Disciples  their  Campbell,  etc.,  etc., 
but  a  simultaneous  rising  of  men  and 
sentiment,  as  was  the  Christian  Church, 
never  before  was  known  since  the  crea¬ 
tion  of  man.  The  causes  that  induced 
separation  from  the  other  churches,  al¬ 
though  differing  in  themselves,  yet  all 
had  the  same  great  object  in  view,  viz. ; 
the  breaking  down  of  assumed  super¬ 
iority  in  the  church,  the  doing  away 
with  the  mere  custonis  and  traditions 
of  men,  the  right  of  private  judgment 


46 


in  matters  of  thought  and  action,  and 
the  correction  of  many  heinous  tradi¬ 
tional  errors  that  had  crept  into  the 
churches,  and  which,  if  not  exposed, 
might  have  finally  caused  their  eternal 
ruin.  ’  ’ 

These  principles  have  stood  the  test 
of  the  most  critical  investigation  and 
severest  trial,  and  have  steadily  come 
to  the  front  until  to-day  they  shine  with 
a  glory  all  divine,  and  when  all  human 
authority,  human  tests,  human  names, 
man-made  creeds  and  man-made  unions 
have  failed,  the  principles  of  which  the 
Christians  are  the  conservators  and  for 
which  they  have  stood  and  stand  to¬ 
day  will  be  approved  of  God  and  ac¬ 
cepted  by  men. 

If  the  Calvinist  and  the  Universalist 
had  equal  rights  and  equal  power,  the 
Calvinist  would  obliterate  Universal- 
ism,  and  the  Universalist  would  wipe 
out  Calvinism,  but  neither  of  them 
would  lay  hands  on  a  single  principle 
of  the  Christians.  If  the  Trinitarians 
and  the  Unitarians  had  equal  rights 
and  equal  power,  would  not  the  Trini¬ 
tarian  destroy  Unitarianism.  and  would 
not  the  Unitarian  destroy  Trinitarian- 
ism  ?  But  neither  the^  Trinitarian  nor 
the  Unitarian  would  lay  hands  on  a 
single  principle  of  the  Christians. 


47 


If  the  Baptist  and  the  Pedo  Baptist 
had  equal  rights  would  not  the  Baptist 
put  a  pool  in  every  Pedo  Baptist 
church,  and  would  not  the  Pedo  Baptist 
close  up  all  the  baptistries  of  the  Bap¬ 
tists  ?  Most  certainly  they  would.  But 
would  either  of  them  lay  hands  on  the 
Right  of  Private  Judgment,  Character 
as  a  sufficient  test  of  fellowship,  the 
name  Christian,  or  the  Bible  a  sufficient 
rule  of  faith  and  practice? 

I  cannot  close  this  brief  sketch  more 
appropriately  than  in  the  words  of  the 
great  and  good  N.  Summerbell,  D.  D., 
who  wrote  but  a  short  time  prior  to 
his  death  all  the  following  on  a  postal 
card : 

The  Christians  believe — 

In  the  Bible  as  making  a  man  perfect 
for  all  good  works. 

In  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living 
God. 

In  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  the  Re¬ 
prover  and  Comforter. 

In  the  new  birth,  the  forgiveness  of 
sins  and  life  everlasting. 

In  salvation  through  the  blood  of 
Jesus. 

In  repentance,  conversion,  confession, 
prayer,  baptism,  communion,  holiness 
and  good  Avorks. 

In  all  that  Jesus  taught,  the  apostles 


48 


preached,  the  first  Christians  believed, 
or  is  believed  in  heaven. 

Christians  think  that  more  of  God’s 
children  in  the  world  are  of  their  faith 
than  any  other,  and  that  it  is  the  only 
faith  generally  believed,  or  that  ever 
can  be. 

That  they  are  most  ortliodox,  most 
evangelical  and  biblical,  most  Catholic 
and  liberal. 

Their  name  is  most  general,  their 
creed  (the  Bible)  most  acceptable, 
that  God  is  the  father  of  all  in  every 
age. 

They  first  restored  the  Christian 
name,  started  the  first  religions  news¬ 
paper,  opened  the  first  college  with 
equal  privileges  for  the  sexes,  and  were 
the  first  to  restore  open  communion. 

They  hold  the  Bible  without  human 
creeds,  baptism  without  close  commun¬ 
ion,  true  faith  without  bigotry. 

Theirs  is  the  oldest  denomination, 
the  most  scriptural  name,  the  most 
charitable  spirit,  the  most  pure  religion, 
the  most  rational  conversion. 

Nobody  can  find  a  better  name  than 
Christian;  a  better  creed  than  the  Bi¬ 
ble  ;  a  better  fellowship  for  all  saints. 

There  is  not  an  article  of  their  faith 
that  requires  any  change  of  the  scrip¬ 
ture  statement;  nor  any  other  denom- 


49 


ination  that  can  compare  with  them  in 
scripture  conformity. 

Their  name  covers  all  the  followers 
of  J esus ;  their  charity  is  over  all  whom 
God  loves;  their  church  was  organized 
at  Jerusalem;  added  to  at  Pentecost, 
and  has  the  promise  that  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 

Christ  was  their  first  teacher;  the 
apostles  their  preachers;  the  converted 
Jews  their  first  members,  and  all  the 
saved  are  their  brethren.  They  have 
unity  with  diversity,  truth  with  tolera¬ 
tion,  obedience  without  boasting,  and, 
while  liberal,  are  conservative. 

Theirs  is  the  only  name  which  of  it¬ 
self  signifies  Christianity,  the  only 
church  named  in  the  Bible,  the  only 
creed  that  will  cross  Jordan,  and  there 
is  no  reason  why  all  Christians  should 
not  adopt  the  same  Biblical  and  evan¬ 
gelical  principles,  except  human  consid¬ 
erations. 

It  is  the  representative  church  of  the 
Christian  world ;  its  name  needs  no 
changing ;  its  creed  needs  no  mending ; 
its  fellowship  needs  no  extending;  its 
charity  needs  no  expanding.  We  ask 
not  union  for  we  are  on  our  part  in 
union  with  all;  nor  fellowship,  for  we 
are  on  our  part  in  fellowship  with  all; 
and  though  we  cannot  go  to  them,  we 
know  they  will  come  to  us,  for  we  hold 
to  the  only  form  of  religion  which  will 
pass  into  heaven. 


60 


THE  QUESTION  SETTLED 


\ 


V 


\ 


A  Note  of  Explanation 


The  Rev.  Charles  Clayton  Morrison,  one  of 
the  editors  of  The  Christian  Century,  a  Dis¬ 
ciple  paper  of  Chicago,  in  the  early  part  of 
this  year  (1911)  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
Rev.  J.  Pressley  Barrett,  D.  D.,  editor  of 
The  Herald  of  Gospel  Liberty,  in  which  he 
asked  Dr.  Barrett  three  questions,  hearing 
upon  the  matter  of  the  Christian  Church  and 
the  Disciple  Church  not  being  one  and  the 
same  people.  Dr.  Barrett  answered  the  three 
questions  in  a  way  which  shows  clearly  and 
unmistakably  the  facts  in  the  case,  and  then 
he  asked  The  Christian  Century  to  publish 
his  answers  to  the  questions  asked  by  its 
beloved  editor,  but  The  Century  refused 
to  publish  the  facts  for  which  its  editor 
had  asked,  giving  as  his  reason  for  not 
publishing  the  answers  this  statement : 

“It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  there  is  any 
difference  between  you  and  us  wiiich  needs 

to  occupy  newspaper  space . The 

matter  in  your  letter  to  me  is  not  germane 
to  the  controversy.  Our  people  are  not 
afraid  of  the  facts  as  you  intimate,  nor  is 
The  Christian  Century  afraid  of  the  facts. 
1  simply  do  not  see  that  there  are  any  facts 
to  write  about.” 

It  may  be  that  our  Disciple  brethren  are 
not  afraid  of  the  facts,  but  they  invariably 
refuse  to  allow  the  facts  to  be  given  to  their 
people.  Mr.  Morrison  says  “there  are  no 
facts  to  write  about”.  On  this  point  there 
may  be  a  difference  of  opinion — at  any  rate 
the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  as  he 
reads  Dr.  Barrett’s  answers  to  the  questions 


53 


asked  by  the  Editor  of  The  Christian  Century, 
as  given  below. 

As  indicating  the  effect  of  Dr.  Barrett’s 
answers  to  Mr.  Morrison’s  questions,  the 
next  issue  of  The  Christian  Century  after  its 
editor  had  received  Dr.  Barrett’s  answers  to 
his  questions,  in  discussing  the  matters  in¬ 
volved,  said  this : 

“It  is  equally  a  waste  of  words  and  temper 
to  be  denying  that  there  ever  has  been  any 
organic  connection  between  the  Christian 
Church,  in  which  James  O’Kelly  was  a  lead¬ 
er,  and  the  Disciple  Church  in  which  Alex¬ 
ander  Campbell  was  a  leader.’  No  one  ever 
said  there  was  such  connection — no  one  ever 
dreamed  there  was”. 

That  is  enough.  At  last  they  give  it  up  and 
admit  that  the  two  bodies  never  were  organ¬ 
ically  connected.  We  hazard  nothing  in  say¬ 
ing  it  is  the  first  time  a  Disciple  editor  has 
made  such  an  admission.  But  read  Dr. 
Barrett’s  answers,  and  you  will  see  why  it  is 
admitted — it  is  because  there  is  no  way  to 
deny  it  truthfully. 

J.  F.  BURNETT. 


54 


A  Disciple  Editor  Gives 
Up  the  Contention 


Dayton,  0.,  Feb.,  1,  1911. 

Rev.  Charles  Clayton  Morrison, 

Editor  Christian  Century 

My  Dear  Brother : 

Your  letter  of  Jan.  25th  has  been  re¬ 
ceived,  and  it  gives  me  pleasure  to  an¬ 
swer  the  three  questions  you  submit, 
as  follows : 

Question  One. 

“Do  you  and  your  people  object  to  the  title 
‘Christian  Connection’  ?  If  not  now,  has  this 
title  ever  been  acceptable  to  your  people?” 

Answer. 

We  have  never  accepted  the  name 
Christian  Connection  as  a  people,  nor 
do  we  now  accept  it  as  such.  Some 
years  ago  the  officials  of  the  United 
States  Government  used  that  name  in 
the  Census  in  an  effort  to  make  a  dis¬ 
tinction  between  our  people  and  the 
Disciples.  This  was  an  act  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment,  and  not  an  act  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church,  but  it  led  many  people, 
outsiders,  to  apply  the  term  to  us.  The 
Church,  however,  has  never  given  rec¬ 
ognition  to  the  word  “Connection”  as 
any  part  of  our  name. 


55 


Question  Two. 

“Do  I  understand  you  to  claim  James  O'Kelly 
as  tlie  founder  of  your  organized  denomination, 
or  do  you  look  to  him  simply  as  one  who  held 
the  same  principles  of  which  your  communion  is 
the  exponent?  In  other  words,  is  the  Christian 
Church  the  continuation  of  the  movement  origi¬ 
nated  hy  Mr.  O'Kelly?’’ 


Answer.  , 

In  the  larger  sense  we  regard  Christ 
as  the  Founder  of  the  Church,  hut 
speaking  from  a  human  standpoint  and 
referring  to  the  organization  of  our 
particular  branch  of  the  Church,  we  re¬ 
gard  James  O’Kelly  as  the  founder  of 
our  organization.  He  not  only  held  the 
same  principles,  hut  he  was  personally 
the  leader  of  the  movement.  It  is 
therefore  a  continuation  of  the  organi¬ 
zation  originated  hy  Mr.  0  ’Kelly.  This 
fact  in  itself  is  a  sufficient  basis  for 
our  objection  to  the  claim  of  the  Disci¬ 
ples  that  O’Kelly  was  a  leader  in  the 
“Restoration  Movement.”  O’Kelly 
knew  absolutely  nothing  of  tlie  Disci¬ 
ple  movement,  having  passed  away  be¬ 
fore  the  Disciple  Church,  as  such,  had 
any  existence.  James  O’Kelly  never 
heard  of  the  Disciple  Church  unless  he 
has  heard  of  it  since  he  has  been  in 
Heaven.  It  is  therefore  utterly  out  of 
the  question  to  attempt  to  defend  the 
statement  that  O’Kelly  was  a  leader  in 


56 


the  movement  which  culminated  in  the 
establishment  of  the  Disciple  Church. 

Question  Three. 

“IIow  do  you  connect  Barton  W.  Stone  and  his 
movement  with  your  denomination?  Do  you  re¬ 
gard  stone  and  his  followers  as  members  of  an 
already  existing  denomination  founded  by  O’Kelly, 
or  as  hims.elf  the  originator  of  a  movement?  If 
the  latter,  in  which  line  does  the  Christian  Church 
belong,  that  of  O'Kelly  or  Stone?  If  in  the  line 
of  both  O'Kelly  and  Stone,  when  and  how  did  the 
coalition  take  place  between  the  O'Kelly  and  Stone 
movements  ?” 

Answer. 

As  is  well  known  Barton  W.  Stone 
did  not  sever  his  connection  with  the 
Presbyterian  Church  till  the  year  1803. 
See  Biography  of  Stone,  written  by 
himself  and  published  in  1847,  page 
171.  Stone  did  not  meet  with  Alexan¬ 
der  Campbell  till  1824.  See  Gates’ 
‘'Stovij  of  the  Churches,  the  Disei-ples 
of  Christ,”  page  78.  Now  between 
Stone’s  separation  from  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  and  the  date  of  the  first 
meeting  he  had  with  Mr.  Campbell 
there  is  a  space  of  21  years.  lie  was 
not  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and 
he  was  certainly  not  in  the  Disciple 
Church,  for  the  meeting  for  the  union 
of  Stone’s  followers  and  those  of  Mr. 
Campbell  was  not  held  till  1832.  Now 
where  and  what  were  Mr.  Stone  and 
his  people  from  1803  till  1832?  The 
clear  facts  of  history  show  that  he  was 


f 


57 


not  with  Mr.  Campbell.  The  truth  is 
Mr.  Stone  was  busy  preaching  the  Gos¬ 
pel  for  his  followers  in  the  Christian 
Church  and  winning  men  to  Christ  for 
salvation.  He  led  in  the  great  work  of 
the  Cane  Ridge  revival.  It  was  there 
the  great  deeps  of  sectarianism  were 
broken  up  in  that  country,  and  the  peo¬ 
ple  coming  out  from  the  bondage  of 
sectarian  fetters  were  following  Mr. 
Stone  as  a  leader.  In  the  year  1804  we 
find  Rice  Haggard  of  Virginia  locating 
in  Kentucky,  and  in  that  year  we  find 
him  in  a  meeting  with  Mr.  Stone  and 
his  associates.  Mr.  Haggard  had  been 
closely  allied  with  Mr.  O’Kelly  in  the 
work  of  the  Christian  Church  in  Vir¬ 
ginia  and  North  Carolina.  Mr.  Stone 
himself  tells  what  took  place  when  they 
got  well  acquainted  one  with  the  other 
and  understood  the  ideas  each  held  as 
to  church  matters,  theological  views, 
etc.  Hear  him : 

“Under  the  name  of  the  Springfield 
Presbytery  we  went  forward  preach¬ 
ing,  and  constituting  churches;  but  we 
had  not  worn  our  name  more  than  one 
year,  before  we  saw  it  savored  of  party 
spirit.  With  the  man-made  creeds  we 
threw  it  overboard,  and  took  the  name 
Christian — the  name  given  to  the  Dis¬ 
ciples  by  divine  appointment  first  at 
Antioch.  We  published  a  pamphlet  on 
this  name,  written  by  Eld.  Rice  Hag¬ 
gard,  who  had  lately  united  with  us.” 

58 


That  shows  very  conclusively  how 
the  coalition  took  place.  Besides  Eld. 
Samuel  Rogers  in  his  Autobiography 
(page  101)  says  it  was  Rice  Haggard 
who  first  suggested  to  Stone  the  pro¬ 
priety  of  taking  the  name  “Christian” 
as  the  divinely  given  name  at  Antioch. 
This  occurred  in  the  year  1804,  and 
therefore  can  have  no  possible  connec¬ 
tion  with  the  Disciple  movement,  for 
the  finest  fringes  of  their  history  have 
never  been  traced  farther  back  than 
to  the  year  1809,  even  according  to  the 
figuring  of  the  Disciples  themselves. 
Now  who  was  it  that  Rice  Haggard 
united  with  in  1804  in  Kentucky?  Was 
it  Alexander  Campbell?  He  was  not 
even  in  America  at  that  time,  nor  had 
the  Disciple  movement  been  even 
dreamed  of  as  early  as  1804.  From  the 
coming  of  Rice  Haggard  from  the 
Christian  Church  in  Virginia  to  Ken¬ 
tucky  and  making  known  to  Mr.  Stone 
the  character  of  the  work  of  Mr.  O’Kel¬ 
ly  and  his  associates,  of  the  taking  of 
the  Bible  as  their  only  creed,  Christian 
their  only  name,  and  Chris'tian  charac¬ 
ter  as  the  test  of  fellowship,  together 
with  the  right  of  individual  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  the  Scriptures,  Mr.  Stone  and 
his  followers  were  of  the  Christian 
Church  and  from  it  he  did  not  with¬ 
draw  to  the  day  of  his  death. 


59 


Meeting  Alexander  Campbell  for  the 
first  time  in  1824,  they  became  fast 
friends,  uniting  as  far  as  possible  in  the 
spread  of  the  Gospel  and  in  winning 
souls  to  Christ.  As  the  years  passed 
the  ties  of  friendship  and  brotherhood 
were  strengthened,  till  the  year  1832, 
when  a  meeting  was  called  to  consider 
the  matter  of  the  union  of  the  two  bod¬ 
ies — the  followers  of  Stone  and  those  of 
Campbell.  This  fact  is  plainly  stated 
by  Eld.  John  Kogers  in  Stone’s  Biog¬ 
raphy.  See  page  342.  Now,  if  Mr. 
Stone  and  his  followers  were  Disciples, 
why  was  this  meeting  called  to  unite 
these  two  branches  of  the  Church  Mili¬ 
tant?  Who  can  give  a  reason  for  the 
effort? 

This  meeting  for  the  consideration  of 
the  union  of  the  two  bodies  simply  re¬ 
sulted,  so  far  as  official  action  was  con¬ 
cerned,  m  a  closer  relationship  of  the 
two  bodies,  not  organically,  but  for  co¬ 
operative  purposes.  As  proof  of  this 
fact  I  quote  the  words  of  Elder  Rogers, 
who  was  present  in  the  meeting  wlien 
the  union  was  effected.  He  said ; 

“No  one  ever  thought  that  the  Re¬ 
formers,  so-called,  had  come  over  to  us, 
or  that  we  had  gone  over  to  them;  that 
they  were  required  to  relinquish  their 
opinions,  or  we  ours.” 


60 


Thus  it  is  as  clear  as  language  can 
make  it  that  the  two  bodies  were  dis¬ 
tinct  then,  even  after  the  co-operative 
iinion  had  been  formed.  kir.  Stom- 
and  his  followers  were  certainly  not  of 
the  Campbell  people,  else  they  would 
not  have  been  trying  to  unite.  In  view 
of  this  fact  the  adoption  by  Mr.  Stone 
and  his  followers  of  the  principles  of 
O’Kelly  and  his  associates,  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  Rice  Haggard  as  an  adviser  and 
member,  and  the  further  testimony  of 
Elder  Samuel  Rogers  that  it  was  Hag¬ 
gard  who  suggested  to  Mr.  Stone  the 
propriety  of  taking  the  name  Christian, 
the  name  divinely  given  at  Antioch, 
seems  to  put  beyond  question  the  possi¬ 
bility  of  Mr.  Stone  having  been  of  the 
Disciple  Church. 

AAA  have  further  testimony  as  to  the 
bodies  being  distinct  in  the  words  of 
Air.  Campbell  himself,  bearing  upon 
the  choice  of  a  name  for  his  people, 
when  he  declared  that  the  name  Chris¬ 
tian  was  his  first  choice,  but  as  it  had 
been  appropriated  by  another  people, 
he  declined  to  take  it,  and  after  mature 
consideration  he  concluded  that  he  lik¬ 
ed  the  name  Disciple  better,  and  so  he 
chose  that  as  the  great  family  name  for 
his  people.  If  Air.  Campbell  had  con¬ 
sidered  them  all  one  he  could  have  had 
no  such  difficulty  in  choosing  a  name. 


61 


The  truth  is  there  were  two  distinct 
bodies  then  as  now. 

You  say  on  the  face  of  the  discussion 
there  is  nothing  important  involved. 
My  brother,  are  not  the  facts  of  history 
important?  And  is  it  not  important  to 
have  the  facts  correctly  recorded?  To 
the  Christian  Church  these  facts  are 
important,  and  for  two  .reasons :  1.  Be¬ 
cause  the  incorrect  statement  of  these 
facts  of  history  places  us  with  a  people 
with  whom  we  have  little  in  common, 
theologically  speaking.  We  belong  es¬ 
sentially  to  a  different  school  of  theo¬ 
logical  thought,  and  the  misstatement 
of  the  facts  of  history  greatly  confuses 
the  truth  as  it  pertains  to  us  as  a  peo¬ 
ple.  2.  Because  right  demands  that 
history  should  be  correctly  recorded. 

The  Christian  Church,  as  founded  by 
James  O’Kelly,  takes  a  widely  different 
view  of  many  theological  questions 
from  the  Disciples. 

To  illustrate — The  Christian  Church 
does  not  observe  the  Lord’s  Supper 
weekly,  but  the  Disciples  do ;  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  does  not  require  immer¬ 
sion  in  water  as  essential  to  baptism, 
but  the  Disciples  do ;  the  Christian 
Church  does  not  teach  that  in  the  act 
of  baptism  in  water  the  sinner  is  for¬ 
given  his  sins,  as  is  charged  against  the 
Disciples;  the  Christian  Church  holds 


62 


that  the  new  birth  is  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  and  not  of  water;  the  Christian 
Church  repudiates  all  man-made  creeds 
and  claims  the  Bible  as  the  only  and 
all-sufficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice, 
and  standing  upon  that  basis  it  makes 
bold  to  extend  Christian  and  church 
fellowship  to  every  child  of  God  with¬ 
out  regard  to  mere  differences  of  opin¬ 
ion  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Word, 
whereas,  as  we  understand  the  Disci¬ 
ples,  they  also  accept  the  Scriptures  as 
an  all-sufficient  creed,  but  whoever 
would  have  fellowship  with  them  must 
accept  the  peculiar  vie ws^ and  interpre¬ 
tations  commonly  held  among  the  Disci¬ 
ples,  or  they  cannot  he  fellowshipped 
at  all.  Here  we  find  the  great  barrier 
between  the  union  of  these  two  bodies 
— where  they  are  so  unlike. 

I  am  not  seeking  to  discuss  here  the 
merits  of  the  positions  held  by  the  two 
bodies.  I  only  wish  to  show  that  hold¬ 
ing  such  divergent  views  it  is  practi¬ 
cally  impossible  for  us  to  be  the  same 
people,  theologically.  In  view  of  these 
facts  I  think  you  cannot  longer  be  sur¬ 
prised  that  we  are  unwilling  to  go  be¬ 
fore  the  world  as  followers  of  Alexan¬ 
der  Campbell,  not  that  he  is  not  worthy 
of  high  appreciation  and  love,  not  that 
at  all,  but  because  we  are  essentially  of 


63 


a  different  school  of  theological 
thought. 

I  am  not  writing  with  any  desire  for 
controversy.  Both  of  us  ought  to  have 
too  much  good  work  in  the  Master’s 
service  for  that.  ]\Iy  purpose  is  in  an¬ 
other  direction  altogether.  I  am  writ¬ 
ing  at  your  request,  seeking  to  clear 
up  the  confusion  between  us  historic¬ 
ally,  and  therein  to  show  why  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  is  unwilling  to  go  before 
the  world  as  the  followers  of  Alexan¬ 
der  Campbell,  and  this  I  have  tried  to 
do,  true  to  the  truth,  in  the  fear  of  God, 
and  in  fairness  to  all  concerned,  and 
with  it  all  in  the  spirit  of  brotherly 
kindness. 

Cordially  and  Fraternally  yours, 

J.  PRESSLEY  BARRETT. 


